What is etiam doing in line 34 of Roma Aeterna XLII? The clause, Multi mortales convenere studio etiam videndae novae urbis (Many people came with a desire of seeing the new city) seems to make sense without it.

I don't have the book with me, but etiam means 'also', 'even', so it must be joining up two different sentences. It probably means that they not only wanted to do something else (probably mentioned previously), but wanted to see the new city as well.

But....a gerundive is passive and really like an adjective.., right? So 'videndae novae urbis' if 'videndae' is gerundive means 'the new city worthy of being seen' so we have : many men came together desirous (studio) the new city worthy of being seen.....? I don't understand how it works as a gerundive.... the verbal meaning of videndae refers to the city rather than the multitude.....?

Actually I think I get it. The Gerundive agrees with the objective...so 'studio' expresses 'for the purpose of' and the 'object' of the gerundive must agree with the gerundive case used in this instance...do I have that right?

(2) OBJECTS: When a gerund takes an object, the object is in the same case that the verb which the gerund comes from normally takes. Ex.) viros interficiendi causa for the sake of killing men; "interficio" (to kill) takes an accusative, so "viros" (men) is in the accusative libris studendi causa for the sake of studying books; "studeo" (to study) takes the dative, so "libris" (books) is in the dative.

where at about 6.30 minutes in he says that whilst Gerunds can take objects in accusative - most of the time the case of the object agrees with the Gerund but the Gerund takes on the gender and number of the object. e.g. Discimus docenda Latina or Discimus docendis linguis.

You seem to be confusing gerunds with gerundives. They are similar in form, but it's best to view them as distinct grammatical categories.

The gerund is an active verbal noun. It's neuter singular and it's used only in the genitive, dative, accusative and ablative.

The gerundive is a passive verbal adjective. It agrees in case, gender and number with the noun it modifies, i.e., with the grammatical subject of the gerundive, which is logically the object of the action denoted by the gerundive, since the gerundive is passive.

Generally, instead of using a gerund with a direct object in the accusative, Latin uses a gerundive agreeing in case, gender and number with the logical object of the action, i.e., the grammatical subject of the passive gerundive. This seems to be what is mentioned at 6.30 of the video.

There's a lot of needless confusion over what is a gerund and what a gerundive. At least part of the explanation for it is the lack of consensus on terminology. German speakers and English speakers have gerundium/gerundivum and gerund/gerundive respectively, but the French, in defiance of international entente, refer to both as le gérondif (see Riemann, Syntaxe Latine). Perhaps some countries refer to both as gerunds; I don't know.

On the subject of defiance, I wish you wouldn't persistently refer to Qimmik as Quimmik, pmda. After so many chances to get the name right, your continuing to get it wrong begins to look more like policy than accident.

That you should believe Qimmik, one of the kindest and most charitable scholars one could wish for a teacher, should need you to stand up for him is quite distressing but, reassurangly, even more implausible.

Not least because you misconstrue the meaning of what you read and in your rudeness show the colour of a poor policeman when none has appointed you to the office nor indicated that this forum could be the scene of any impolite crime where such silliness has any purchase, let alone effect. I have no policy and your silliness, being deliberate, is no accident.

Paul

Last edited by pmda on Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That you should believe Qimmik, one of the kindest and most charitable scholars one could wish for a teacher, should need you to stand up for him is quite distressing but, reassurangly, even more implausible.

Not least because you misconstrue the meaning of what you read and in your rudeness show the colour of a poor policeman when none has appointed you to the office nor indicated that this forum could be the scene of any impolite crime where such silliness has any purchase, let alone effect.

Paul

You're way off target. I wasn't standing up for Qimmik; I was testing to see whether you are more mature than you appeared to be. Clearly you aren't.